Activate Document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds a useful precondition (the document must already be open), which is genuine context beyond the structured data, but it does not explain what activation changes — e.g. that subsequent Revit calls target the newly active document — nor what happens if the document is not found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier and the document-identification mechanism both land in the first reading. Nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter activation call the description supplies the essentials — action, target state, and accepted reference forms — so it is adequately complete despite saying nothing about failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. 'By title or path reference' usefully explains the accepted formats for the required `document` argument, but `process_id` is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, so compensation is only partial for a 2-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (activate) and resource (document) plus a key scope qualifier — 'already open' — which separates it from revit_open_document and revit_new_document. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing, but the intent is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'already open document' implies the use case (switch focus among loaded documents) and implicitly excludes revit_open_document for unopened files, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the sibling alternatives are never named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.